Swill and Cigarettes rejects your well thought out and practical evaluation of this bill. It was passed by "The One" and thus will be nothing short of the best thing EVER. Also all of your info is a fabrication and again cannot be correct as the infinite wisdom of he whose name must never be pronounced could not be so short sided. Also something about greedy business owners and all Republicans having never heard of Romney care which is 100% the same thing.

Yeah, he's quite ridiculous. No need to engage him any further in debate. He probably believes Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim out to destroy America and particularly American businesses.

Worst part is he makes illogical points; not politically illogical, logically illogical. When I said that the raw dollar amount he pays in taxes is immaterial (vs the percentage), he responded by giving me scenarios where the cost of purchasing items are in percentages rather than dollars. I have no idea wtf that has to do with anything, but it's absolutely retarded.

Then I say that his hyperbolic post reads as if it were made by someone on coke, and he responds with something about me and acid? It's like he's just typing random sentences.

Yeah, he's quite ridiculous. No need to engage him any further in debate. He probably believes Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim out to destroy America and particularly American businesses.

I invited you to critique anything ive said in this thread about Obamacare, and you have nothing so you go to this... I think both of you would be shocked if you met me in person, just because of how far of base you are.

Worst part is he makes illogical points; not politically illogical, logically illogical. When I said that the raw dollar amount he pays in taxes is immaterial (vs the percentage), he responded by giving me scenarios where the cost of purchasing items are in percentages rather than dollars. I have no idea wtf that has to do with anything, but it's absolutely retarded.

Then I say that his hyperbolic post reads as if it were made by someone on coke, and he responds with something about me and acid? It's like he's just typing random sentences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

My ideals? wtf does that mean? And btw, it's been a week or two since I got someone banned, are you giving me a moronic invitation?

^good luck.

I think its hilarious that you didnt understand the percentage reference, pretty self explanatory... Just face it, not one of you have EVER brought up a point that was based on sound logic.With you its nothing but ad hominem BS, and taking everything at face value. Just for you scotch ill spell it out, just because a bill says its going to reduce costs doesnt mean it will, there has to be a way in which it reduces cost for it to work.

If you site the rich needing to pay more in taxes (than current levels) not because of how much the contribute to the whole pie, but by virtue of them needing to not have as much disposable income as they currently do, that is an ad hominem argument. IE "the reason they should pay more is because they live well enough already"

You do realize insurance companies will be providing the health insurance available through the exchanges, correct? There is no such thing as 'obamacare' coverage, whatever that is.

Nice parsing of semantics Mr. Wizard. I realize the supporters don't like the term "Obamacare" but that's what we will continue to call it until it is crushed or this country is a wheezing, impotent, feckless shadow of its prior self.

While some current insurance companies will be administering the plan, that is all they will be doing. The risk will be shifted upward (to the taxpayers) and downward (to the providers).

And again, the plans they will be providing will be paying providers at never before seen shitty rates much lower than the current reimbursment for commercial contracts. THIS is what will dry up the supply of providers even more than it already is due to the drastic reduction in practice and hospital revenue.

Worst part is he makes illogical points; not politically illogical, logically illogical. When I said that the raw dollar amount he pays in taxes is immaterial (vs the percentage), he responded by giving me scenarios where the cost of purchasing items are in percentages rather than dollars. I have no idea wtf that has to do with anything, but it's absolutely retarded.

He was clearly illustrating how percentages are not as important as raw dollars. If you cannot see that, then that perhaps explains why you apparently think that raw dollars are meaningless.

Let me try and explain it differently.

Why does the gov collect taxes? To pay for the services they render.

Those services cost money. RAW DOLLARS. The costs of those do not vary based upon who is consuming them. It costs x dollars to buy an F-16, for example.

Scotch, when you see an F-16, you should realize that the "whiny, millionaire business owners" have paid for a much bigger piece of that airplane than you have, yet you both enjoy the freedoms it defends. The RAW dollars they rich contibute are a much larger piece of the tax revenue pie than the middle class.

Without the rich, it's fair to say that the F-16 would simply not be in the air at all. It's not as if the gov would go to General Dynamics and say, "the ability to pay of our taxpayer base simply cannot afford to pay any more, so we're gonna need you to sell us that jet at 25 cents on the dollar. That wouldnt happen, General Dynamics would lose their shirt, so the jet simply wouldnt be there at all. Percentages and ability to pay are irrelevant; the gear costs a lot of raw dollars, regardless of who it protects.

Not sure how make that basic arithmetic concept any simpler...

Of course, you can make them suffer the same hardship as the middle class by jacking up the tax rates, but unlike the last time we did that, this is 2012, and there are a LOT of other options around the globe that were not there before. They will take their money, and invest it elsewhere. You think job offshoring of jobs is bad now, just tax them more. It ain't 1960 anymore. People have choices, dont encourage them to exercise those choices...

I think its hilarious that you didnt understand the percentage reference, pretty self explanatory

I understand the reference, as well as everything you all have repeated ad-nauseum. What I said was that it made no sense for you to imply that my way of measuring one thing (tax burden) should be applied to the pricing of personal consumer items. One has nothing to do with another, you only did it as a distraction from the argument. I'll give you some advice; next time you're tempted to say that the person debating you "doesn't know anything", stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txz4

If you site the rich needing to pay more in taxes (than current levels) not because of how much the contribute to the whole pie, but by virtue of them needing to not have as much disposable income as they currently do, that is an ad hominem argument. IE "the reason they should pay more is because they live well enough already"

Again, you're making the mistake of trying to tell me how you believe I think, rather than just understanding what I actually say. I don't give a flying f'k how well anybody lives; that has zero to do with anything. I'll say it again for you: We have a graduated tax system, and for a good reason. Those with low incomes (and no discretionary) pay lower rates, while higher incomes are taxed at higher rates as discretionary income rises. It's unbelieveable that I need to keep reiterating this.

I pay a higher rate than those who make less, fair enough - but only if those making more than me do likewise, or else it's not fair. OK? Can it be any simpler? When someone making five times my income pays the same (or lower) rate than me, that's not fair. The fact that they're paying more tax dollars than me is simply because they have a lot more income to tax, so again, that doesn't help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

He was clearly illustrating how percentages are not as important as raw dollars. If you cannot see that, then that perhaps explains why you apparently think that raw dollars are meaningless.

Let me try and explain it differently.

Why does the gov collect taxes? To pay for the services they render.

Those services cost money. RAW DOLLARS. The costs of those do not vary based upon who is consuming them. It costs x dollars to buy an F-16, for example.

Scotch, when you see an F-16, you should realize that the "whiny, millionaire business owners" have paid for a much bigger piece of that airplane than you have, yet you both enjoy the freedoms it defends. The RAW dollars they rich contibute are a much larger piece of the tax revenue pie than the middle class.

Without the rich, it's fair to say that the F-16 would simply not be in the air at all. It's not as if the gov would go to General Dynamics and say, "the ability to pay of our taxpayer base simply cannot afford to pay any more, so we're gonna need you to sell us that jet at 25 cents on the dollar. That wouldnt happen, General Dynamics would lose their shirt, so the jet simply wouldnt be there at all. Percentages and ability to pay are irrelevant; the gear costs a lot of raw dollars, regardless of who it protects.

Not sure how make that basic arithmetic concept any simpler...

Of course, you can make them suffer the same hardship as the middle class by jacking up the tax rates, but unlike the last time we did that, this is 2012, and there are a LOT of other options around the globe that were not there before. They will take their money, and invest it elsewhere. You think job offshoring of jobs is bad now, just tax them more. It ain't 1960 anymore. People have choices, dont encourage them to exercise those choices...

Another patronizing blowhard. We all got the point about a year ago in this thread. Your premise that I "enjoy" the F-16 as much as you, despite paying less taxes towards it is a seriously disturbed way of looking at the world, and wrong too. My kids are out of public school, so how can I "enjoy" the 83% of my property taxes that go to the schools? Here's what I do enjoy though. The more money I make, the more I get to keep, and the more I can spend or invest. Same for you, same for everybody.

Here's a thought: make our graduated taxes graduated, all the way up. Not just until it gets to my income level, because like I said, that's not fair. So then after paying for F-16s and everything else in "raw dollars", if there's money left over, give the middle class a tax cut. And if that causes business owners to move out of the US, then f'k 'em.

Another patronizing blowhard. We all got the point about a year ago in this thread. Your premise that I "enjoy" the F-16 as much as you, despite paying less taxes towards it is a seriously disturbed way of looking at the world, and wrong too. My kids are out of public school, so how can I "enjoy" the 83% of my property taxes that go to the schools? Here's what I do enjoy though. The more money I make, the more I get to keep, and the more I can spend or invest. Same for you, same for everybody.

Here's a thought: make our graduated taxes graduated, all the way up. Not just until it gets to my income level, because like I said, that's not fair. So then after paying for F-16s and everything else in "raw dollars", if there's money left over, give the middle class a tax cut. And if that causes business owners to move out of the US, then f'k 'em.

What do you mean, IF that causes business owners to move jobs out of the US ?
They have been for years now, in the millions, and that's with todays historically low rates for high earners.

You raise high-end tax rates to return to rates of the 1960's (when they didnt have viable alternatives), and those numbers will jump exponentially higher. Similar to the effect when a 49 person enterprise thinks about hiring one of your kids in a few years, and the mandatory healthcare covereage makes them think twice. Perhaps WHEN it affects you, or your kids, or your friends directly, then you wont be so cavalier about saying F'em to those companies.

You can whine about your taxes that pay for schools, but consider those like me who dont have kids and still pay those same taxes. But then, everytime I interact with anyone who went to a public school, I realize it's a valuable service, and someone has to pay for it. Just like the F-16. You may not enjoy the fact that such a machine needs to exist, but trust me, every time you get to make choices that people in places like Cuba dont get to make, you are in fact enjoying the services rendered by that F-16...

I understand the reference, as well as everything you all have repeated ad-nauseum. What I said was that it made no sense for you to imply that my way of measuring one thing (tax burden) should be applied to the pricing of personal consumer items. One has nothing to do with another, you only did it as a distraction from the argument. I'll give you some advice; next time you're tempted to say that the person debating you "doesn't know anything", stop.
Again, you're making the mistake of trying to tell me how you believe I think, rather than just understanding what I actually say. I don't give a flying f'k how well anybody lives; that has zero to do with anything. I'll say it again for you: We have a graduated tax system, and for a good reason. Those with low incomes (and no discretionary) pay lower rates, while higher incomes are taxed at higher rates as discretionary income rises. It's unbelieveable that I need to keep reiterating this.

I pay a higher rate than those who make less, fair enough - but only if those making more than me do likewise, or else it's not fair. OK? Can it be any simpler? When someone making five times my income pays the same (or lower) rate than me, that's not fair. The fact that they're paying more tax dollars than me is simply because they have a lot more income to tax, so again, that doesn't help.

Another patronizing blowhard. We all got the point about a year ago in this thread. Your premise that I "enjoy" the F-16 as much as you, despite paying less taxes towards it is a seriously disturbed way of looking at the world, and wrong too. My kids are out of public school, so how can I "enjoy" the 83% of my property taxes that go to the schools? Here's what I do enjoy though. The more money I make, the more I get to keep, and the more I can spend or invest. Same for you, same for everybody.

Here's a thought: make our graduated taxes graduated, all the way up. Not just until it gets to my income level, because like I said, that's not fair. So then after paying for F-16s and everything else in "raw dollars", if there's money left over, give the middle class a tax cut. And if that causes business owners to move out of the US, then f'k 'em.

He said all the way to the unemployment line.

If you work for someone else, the only "f you" you're going to hear is the one your boss tells you on his way to more profitable horizons without you. If a employer leaves, jobs leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

He was clearly illustrating how percentages are not as important as raw dollars. If you cannot see that, then that perhaps explains why you apparently think that raw dollars are meaningless.

Let me try and explain it differently.

Why does the gov collect taxes? To pay for the services they render.

Those services cost money. RAW DOLLARS. The costs of those do not vary based upon who is consuming them. It costs x dollars to buy an F-16, for example.

Scotch, when you see an F-16, you should realize that the "whiny, millionaire business owners" have paid for a much bigger piece of that airplane than you have, yet you both enjoy the freedoms it defends. The RAW dollars they rich contibute are a much larger piece of the tax revenue pie than the middle class.

Without the rich, it's fair to say that the F-16 would simply not be in the air at all. It's not as if the gov would go to General Dynamics and say, "the ability to pay of our taxpayer base simply cannot afford to pay any more, so we're gonna need you to sell us that jet at 25 cents on the dollar. That wouldnt happen, General Dynamics would lose their shirt, so the jet simply wouldnt be there at all. Percentages and ability to pay are irrelevant; the gear costs a lot of raw dollars, regardless of who it protects.

Not sure how make that basic arithmetic concept any simpler...

Of course, you can make them suffer the same hardship as the middle class by jacking up the tax rates, but unlike the last time we did that, this is 2012, and there are a LOT of other options around the globe that were not there before. They will take their money, and invest it elsewhere. You think job offshoring of jobs is bad now, just tax them more. It ain't 1960 anymore. People have choices, dont encourage them to exercise those choices...

Really well put middleagedal. I dont know how many different ways people have said that to him, he doesn't care. At the end of the day, whatever the rich pay will never be enough so long as they can still be called rich, according to him and EVERYTHING he's said.

Just like the F-16. You may not enjoy the fact that such a machine needs to exist, but trust me, every time you get to make choices that people in places like Cuba dont get to make, you are in fact enjoying the services rendered by that F-16...

What in god's name are you talking about, and where the hell did it come from? I design systems for the F-16.
This presumption that you know all about people is crap. If you actually read some of my recent posts, you'd know exactly what I do.
And besides, you're the one who started this crap about paying taxes to "enjoy" the F-16. I had nothing to do with that entire line of discussion, but according to you, I suddenly said something in reference to the existence of it. Absolute lunacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txz4

At the end of the day, whatever the rich pay will never be enough so long as they can still be called rich, according to him and EVERYTHING he's said.

Show me when I've EVER said that. You really just ignore what people post, and just keep repeating your propaganda. Let's look at what I actually said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

I don't give a flying f'k how well anybody lives; that has zero to do with anything. We have a graduated tax system, I pay a higher rate than those who make less, fair enough - but only if those making more than me do likewise, or else it's not fair.

I would love to see one debate on here that sticks to facts and does not resort to Ad Hominem attacks or Straw Man arguments. It is tiring to see insults thrown about, assumptions put forward and bans threatened. Why not simply stick to the various facts or philosohies and the practical implications of both?

I have already posted my thoughts on the practical side of this and a solution I thought was close to ideal yet that gets no reply. Instead people from both sides attempt to seek out the starkest contrast to their ideals and move to ostracise their opposition. Are we here for a genuine intellectual exchange or just to hear ourselves talk? Also, if we are to view everything in black and white then the odds of a compromise being reached is unlikely. You all knock congress for getting nothing done and polarizing to the point of paralysis yet I feel that if many of you were in those seats even less would be accomplished. Time to ask yourselves via honest introspection whether or not the research you do on a daily basis or within these threads is to find the truth or to reinforce an already existing viewpoint.

I have already posted my thoughts on the practical side of this and a solution I thought was close to ideal yet that gets no reply.

Yup, you should get used to that... I dont know if you are new to this sub-forum, but you should get used to certain posters ranting and calling people all sorts of names, and insisting their motivations must be racist in nature, instead of attacking the argument itself. (in between bragging about getting folks banned)

I've also made several logical points that few want to address. The biggest of which is the logical elephant in the room, that fact that there are not enough doctors, nurses, and hospital beds to service this huge, sudden influx of bodies into the system. This is a concern shared by people such as the President Elect of the American Medical Association, according to CNN. Nobody has suggested any plausible mitigation for this.

I've also brought up the fact that millions of jobs have already been outsourced, and millions more will follow if you take steps to make the business climate here even more inhospitable than it already is. (that would include doing things like creating financial incentives to stop hiring once a headcount reaches 49, for example). Others have mentioned that also, but nobody wants to acknowledge it, or offer any practical defense against it.

People dont want to address these issues, they would rather call the posts of those who disagree with them "absolute lunacy". If you can find a way to fix that, I'll buy you a beer.

I've also made several logical points that few want to address. The biggest of which is the logical elephant in the room, that fact that there are not enough doctors, nurses, and hospital beds to service this huge, sudden influx of bodies into the system. This is a concern shared by people such as the President Elect of the American Medical Association, according to CNN. Nobody has suggested any plausible mitigation for this.

You've actually raised a valid point (IMO). One which I have never given much thought to. This shouldn't stop us from providing health care to those that need it, but it does present a challenge to overcome. More than likely an expensive one to boot.

People dont want to address these issues, they would rather call the posts of those who disagree with them "absolute lunacy". If you can find a way to fix that, I'll buy you a beer.

How 'bout you give the "holier than thou" ruse a rest. Who made the following statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Just like the F-16. You may not enjoy the fact that such a machine needs to exist

We've all been trying to address the issues, despite your long-winded allegories, and proclamations about the nature of people. Believe it or not, I totally get what you and txz4 have been saying. I disagree with some of it, but there are valid points of skepticism as well. After all, this whole thing is a massive compromise. But at this point, I think everything that needs to be said has been said.

This shouldn't stop us from providing health care to those that need it, but it does present a challenge to overcome.

It shouldnt stop us from getting to the point where eventually, everyone has some kind of healthcare. In the meantime, it should cause us to limit or control the rate at which un-insured people start getting coverage, so that the sudden surge does not overwhelm the system to the point where it is damaging to everyone.

My biggest fear is the "lifeboat effect". (ie: 20 seat lifeboat is full, but nobody wants to leave the last 5 people on deck, so they invite them in. Overcapacity causes that lifeboat to sink, thus drowning 25 people instead of 5)

For those who will suggest my allegory is a twisted exaggeration to support a point:

The Canadian Medical Association Journal states that over the course of only 1 year in Ontario, 71 patients died while waiting for Coronary Bypass Surgery, and 100 more became medically unfit for surgery. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/160/10/1469.full.pdf

Yup, you should get used to that... I dont know if you are new to this sub-forum, but you should get used to certain posters ranting and calling people all sorts of names, and insisting their motivations must be racist in nature, instead of attacking the argument itself. (in between bragging about getting folks banned)

I've also made several logical points that few want to address. The biggest of which is the logical elephant in the room, that fact that there are not enough doctors, nurses, and hospital beds to service this huge, sudden influx of bodies into the system. This is a concern shared by people such as the President Elect of the American Medical Association, according to CNN. Nobody has suggested any plausible mitigation for this.

I've also brought up the fact that millions of jobs have already been outsourced, and millions more will follow if you take steps to make the business climate here even more inhospitable than it already is. (that would include doing things like creating financial incentives to stop hiring once a headcount reaches 49, for example). Others have mentioned that also, but nobody wants to acknowledge it, or offer any practical defense against it.

People dont want to address these issues, they would rather call the posts of those who disagree with them "absolute lunacy". If you can find a way to fix that, I'll buy you a beer.

I would say that when your points go unanswered or people don't respond, it's because they see them as valid, so people don't really see a need to respond or debate on something they basically agree with. For me, it's a waste of time/effort to note that I agree with something, when I'd rather spend more of my time arguing on what I do not agree with. Like Scotch said, he believes some are valid points of skepticism. Is that what you were looking for, just someone to agree with you?

As for the name calling, it's so deeply ingrained in this subforum that it'll likely never go away. I think it just comes with being anonymous on the internet. Take completely normal people, give them some anonymity, and they turn into complete jackasses 90% of the time. The other 10% are just jackasses anyway

It shouldnt stop us from getting to the point where eventually, everyone has some kind of healthcare. In the meantime, it should cause us to limit or control the rate at which un-insured people start getting coverage, so that the sudden surge does not overwhelm the system to the point where it is damaging to everyone.

My biggest fear is the "lifeboat effect". (ie: 20 seat lifeboat is full, but nobody wants to leave the last 5 people on deck, so they invite them in. Overcapacity causes that lifeboat to sink, thus drowning 25 people instead of 5)

For those who will suggest my allegory is a twisted exaggeration to support a point:

The Canadian Medical Association Journal states that over the course of only 1 year in Ontario, 71 patients died while waiting for Coronary Bypass Surgery, and 100 more became medically unfit for surgery. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/160/10/1469.full.pdf

It shouldnt stop us from getting to the point where eventually, everyone has some kind of healthcare. In the meantime, it should cause us to limit or control the rate at which un-insured people start getting coverage, so that the sudden surge does not overwhelm the system to the point where it is damaging to everyone.

My biggest fear is the "lifeboat effect". (ie: 20 seat lifeboat is full, but nobody wants to leave the last 5 people on deck, so they invite them in. Overcapacity causes that lifeboat to sink, thus drowning 25 people instead of 5)

Easing people into the system while raising capacity/ability to provide service. It actually makes sense to me at least, but I am a bit odd.

I guess you would have to start with those who are the most in need. But then how do we decide/choose those most in need. Children first, I don't know? We need more healthcare providers, but that takes time. Do we run the risk of rushing the training or lowering the standards? Neither is acceptable to me. Oy!!! There I go, over-thinking things again.